Evidence for Access: Systematic Scoping Review of Access Systems in General Practice.

BACKGROUND: Access to GP appointments is increasingly challenging in many high-income countries, with an overstretched workforce and rising demand. Various access systems have been developed and evaluated internationally. AIM: We aimed to systematically consolidate the current international evidence base related to different types of GP access systems. DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review examining international literature. METHOD: Literature searches were run across relevant databases in May 2022. Title, abstract and full text screenings were carried out. Data from included studies were extracted and mapped to synthesise the components and aims within different GP access systems. RESULTS: 49 studies were included in the review. The majority of these were set in the UK. Some access systems featured heavily in the literature, such as Advanced Access, telephone triage and online consultations, and others less so. There were two key strategies adopted by systems which related to either changing appointment capacity or modifying patient pathways. Components related to these strategies are summarised and illustrated as a schematic representation. Most rationales behind access systems were practice, rather than patient, focused. 'Add on' systems and aims for efficiency became more popular in recent years. CONCLUSION: The synthesis provides a useful tool in understanding access systems' aims, design, and implementation. With focus on alleviating demand, patient-focused outcomes appear to be under investigated and potentially overlooked during design and implementation. More recently, digital services are promoted as offering patient choice and convenience. But a context where demand outweighs resources challenges the premise that extending choice is possible.

Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities.

BACKGROUND: The priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities. METHODS: A steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority. RESULTS: 77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed. CONCLUSION: We have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years.

Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership to facilitate knowledge translation in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM): insights from AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership could provide insights on knowledge translation within the field of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process for DCM. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: DCM stake holders, including spinal surgeons, people with myelopathy and other healthcare professionals, were surveyed internationally. Research suggestions submitted by stakeholders but considered answered were identified. Sampling characteristics of respondents were compared with the overall cohort to identify subgroups underserved by current knowledge translation. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 423 individuals from 68 different countries. A total of 22% of participants submitted research suggestions that were considered 'answered'. There was a significant difference between responses from different stakeholder groups (p<0.005). Spinal surgeons were the group which was most likely to submit an 'answered' research question. Respondents from South America were also most likely to submit 'answered' questions, when compared with other regions. However, there was no significant difference between responses from different stakeholder regions (p=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge translation challenges exist within DCM. This practical approach to measuring knowledge translation may offer a more responsive assessment to guide interventions, complementing existing metrics.

Lived experience-centred word clouds may improve research uncertainty gathering in priority setting partnerships.

INTRODUCTION: AO Spine RECODE-DCM was a multi-stakeholder priority setting partnership (PSP) to define the top ten research priorities for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Priorities were generated and iteratively refined using a series of surveys administered to surgeons, other healthcare professionals (oHCP) and people with DCM (PwDCM). The aim of this work was to utilise word clouds to enable the perspectives of people with the condition to be heard earlier in the PSP process than is traditionally the case. The objective was to evaluate the added value of word clouds in the process of defining research uncertainties in National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnerships. METHODS: Patient-generated word clouds were created for the four survey subsections of the AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP: diagnosis, treatment, long-term management and other issues. These were then evaluated as a nested methodological study. Word-clouds were created and iteratively refined by an online support group of people with DCM, before being curated by the RECODE-DCM management committee and expert healthcare professional representatives. The final word clouds were embedded within the surveys administered at random to 50% of participants. DCM research uncertainties suggested by participants were compared pre- and post-word cloud presentation. RESULTS: A total of 215 (50.9%) participants were randomised to the word cloud stream, including 118 (55%) spinal surgeons, 52 (24%) PwDCM and 45 (21%) oHCP. Participants submitted 434 additional uncertainties after word cloud review: word count was lower and more uniform across each survey subsections compared to pre-word cloud uncertainties. Twenty-three (32%) of the final 74 PSP summary questions did not have a post-word cloud contribution and no summary question was formed exclusively on post-word cloud uncertainties. There were differences in mapping of pre- and post-word cloud uncertainties to summary questions, with greater mapping of post-word cloud uncertainties to the number 1 research question priority: raising awareness. Five of the final summary questions were more likely to map to the research uncertainties suggested by participants after having reviewed the word clouds. CONCLUSIONS: Word clouds may increase the perspective of underrepresented stakeholders in the research question gathering stage of priority setting partnerships. This may help steer the process towards research questions that are of highest priority for people with the condition.

Top 10 priorities for Sexual Violence and Abuse Research: indings of the James Lind Alliance Sexual Violence Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: To establish a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities relevant to the health and social care needs of adults with lived experience of recent and/or historical sexual violence/abuse. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged 18+ years) with lived experience of sexual violence/abuse (ie, 'survivors') were consulted for this PSP, alongside healthcare and social care professionals who support survivors across the public, voluntary, community, independent practice and social enterprise sectors. METHODS: In line with standard JLA PSP methodology, participants completed an initial online survey to propose research questions relevant to the health and social care needs of survivors. Research questions unanswered by current evidence were identified, and a second online survey was deployed to identify respondents' priorities from this list. Questions prioritised through the second survey were presented at a consensus meeting with key stakeholders to agree the top 10 research priorities using a modified nominal group technique approach. RESULTS: 223 participants (54% survivors) provided 484 suggested questions. Seventy-five unique questions unanswered by research were identified and subsequently ranked by 343 participants (60% survivors). A consensus meeting with 31 stakeholders (42% survivors) examined the top-ranking priorities from the second survey and agreed the top 10 research priorities. These included research into forms of support and recovery outcomes valued by survivors, how to best support people of colour/black, Asian and minority ethnic and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) survivors, improving access to high-quality psychological therapies, reducing public misconceptions/stigma, the impact of involvement in the criminal justice system on well-being, and how physical and mental health services can become more 'trauma informed'. CONCLUSIONS: These research priorities identify crucial gaps in the existing evidence to better support adult survivors of sexual violence and abuse. Researchers and funders should prioritise further work in these priority areas identified by survivors and the professionals who support them.

Top 10 research priorities in colorectal cancer: results from the Colorectal Cancer Priority-Setting Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC. METHODS: The CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list. RESULTS: In the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics. CONCLUSION: All relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide.

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [AO Spine RECODE-DCM]: An Overview of the Methodology Used to Process and Short-List Research Uncertainties.

STUDY DESIGN: Overview of the methods used for a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article are to (i) provide a brief overview of the JLA-facilitated PSP process; (ii) outline how research uncertainties were initially processed in the AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP; and (iii) delineate the methods for interim prioritization and the priority setting workshop. METHODS: A steering group was created to define the scope for the PSP, organize its activities, and establish protocols for decision-making. A survey was created asking what questions on the diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of DCM should be answered by future research. Results from the survey were sorted into summary questions. Several databases were searched to identify literature that already answered these summary questions. The final list of summary questions was distributed by survey for interim prioritization. Participants were asked to select the top ten most important summary questions. The questions that were ranked the highest were discussed at an in-person consensus workshop. RESULTS: The initial survey yielded a total of 3404 potential research questions. Of the in-scope submissions, 988 were related to diagnosis, 1324 to treatment, and 615 to long-term management of DCM. A total of 76 summary questions were developed to reflect the original submissions. Following a second survey, a list of the top 26 interim priorities was generated and discussed at the in-person priority setting workshop. CONCLUSIONS: PSPs enable research priorities to be identified that consider the perspectives and interests of all relevant stakeholders.

Priorities for future research on reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines using a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership: The PROTECT study protocol.

Background: There is a growing number of service users looking to discontinue use of psychiatric medicines. Tapering is the recommended approach for reducing and/or discontinuing the use of psychiatric medicines. This involves gradually reducing the dose over time to minimise the potential for withdrawal symptoms. However, many uncertainties exist regarding the process of reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This study will use a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the Top 10 unanswered questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. Methods : The Priority Setting Partnership will be conducted using the James Lind Alliance methodology. It will involve seven stages: (i) creating an international Steering Group of representatives from key stakeholder groups that will include people with lived experience of taking and/or stopping psychiatric medicines, family members, carers/supporters and healthcare professionals, and identifying potential partners to support key activities (e.g. dissemination); (ii) gathering uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines from key stakeholders using an online survey; (iii) data processing and summarising the survey responses; (iv) checking the summary questions against existing evidence and verifying uncertainties; (v) shortlisting the questions using a second online survey; (vi) determining the Top 10 research questions through an online prioritisation workshop; (vii) disseminating results. Conclusions : This study will use a Priority Setting Partnership to generate a Top 10 list of research questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This list will help to guide future research and deliver responsive and strategic allocation of research resources, with a view to ultimately improving the future health and well-being of individuals who are taking psychiatric medicines.

Gathering Global Perspectives to Establish the Research Priorities and Minimum Data Sets for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Sampling Strategy of the First Round Consensus Surveys of AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey. INTRODUCTION: AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) is an international initiative that aims to accelerate knowledge discovery and improve outcomes by developing a consensus framework for research. This includes defining the top research priorities, an index term and a minimum data set (core outcome set and core data elements set - core outcome set (COS)/core data elements (CDE)). OBJECTIVE: To describe how perspectives were gathered and report the detailed sampling characteristics. METHODS: A two-stage, electronic survey was used to gather and seek initial consensus. Perspectives were sought from spinal surgeons, other healthcare professionals and people with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Participants were allocated to one of two parallel streams: (1) priority setting or (2) minimum dataset. An email campaign was developed to advertise the survey to relevant global stakeholder individuals and organisations. People with DCM were recruited using the international DCM charity Myelopathy.org and its social media channels. A network of global partners was recruited to act as project ambassadors. Data from Google Analytics, MailChimp and Calibrum helped optimise survey dissemination. RESULTS: Survey engagement was high amongst the three stakeholder groups: 208 people with DCM, 389 spinal surgeons and 157 other healthcare professionals. Individuals from 76 different countries participated; the United States, United Kingdom and Canada were the most common countries of participants. CONCLUSION: AO Spine RECODE-DCM recruited a diverse and sufficient number of participants for an international PSP and COS/CDE process. Whilst PSP and COS/CDE have been undertaken in other fields, to our knowledge, this is the first time they have been combined in one process.

The development of lived experience-centered word clouds to support research uncertainty gathering in degenerative cervical myelopathy: results from an engagement process and protocol for their evaluation, via a nested randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: AO Spine REsearch objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [RECODE-DCM] is a multi-stakeholder consensus process aiming to promote research efficiency in DCM. It aims to establish the top 10 research uncertainties, through a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership [PSP]. Through a consensus process, research questions are generated and ranked. The inclusion of people with cervical myelopathy [PwCM] is central to the process. We hypothesized that presenting PwCM experience through word cloud generation would stimulate other key stakeholders to generate research questions better aligned with PwCM needs. This protocol outlines our plans to evaluate this as a nested methodological study within our PSP. METHODS: An online poll asked PwCM to submit and vote on words associated with aspects of DCM. After review, a refined word list was re-polled for voting and word submission. Word clouds were generated and an implementation plan for AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP surveys was subsequently developed. RESULTS: Seventy-nine terms were submitted after the first poll. Eighty-seven refined words were then re-polled (which added a further 39 words). Four word clouds were generated under the categories of diagnosis, management, long-term effects, and other. A 1:1 block randomization protocol to assess word cloud impact on the number and relevance of PSP research questions was generated. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown it is feasible to work with PwCM to generate a tool for the AO Spine RECODE-DCM nested methodological study. Once the survey stage is completed, we will be able to evaluate the impact of the word clouds. Further research will be needed to assess the value of any impact in terms of stimulating a more creative research agenda.

UK Research Priorities for Electronic Cigarettes: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

This study aimed to bring together people who smoke or vape, people who do not smoke and healthcare professionals to identify and agree priorities for electronic cigarette research in the UK. We carried out a priority setting partnership, guided by the methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance involving five key stages: initiation, consultation, collation, prioritisation and dissemination. A total of 765 people submitted 1887 questions that they wanted answered by research. Questions were organised into themes, merged and rewritten as summary questions, with 52 unique questions going forward to the prioritisation survey. Participants then ranked their top 10 questions. Following this ranking exercise, the top 26 were identified by selecting the most frequently prioritised questions adjusting for representative stakeholder group. These were put forward for discussion in the final prioritisation workshop, whereby the top 10 electronic cigarette research questions were agreed. The list of priorities identified will be of interest to researchers and funders of electronic cigarette research and will hopefully direct future research and funding calls. These priorities provide insight into the questions that matter to people who are using or concerned about e-cigarettes, including frontline professionals.

Maternal and newborn health priority setting partnership in rural Uganda in association with the James Lind Alliance: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Maternal and newborn deaths and ill health are relatively common in low income countries, but can adequately be addressed through locally, collaboratively designed, and responsive research. This has the potential to enable the affected women, their families and health workers themselves to explore 'why maternal and newborn adverse outcomes continue to occur. The objectives of the study include; To work with seldom heard groups of mothers, their families, and health workers to identify unanswered research questions for maternal and newborn health in villages and health facilities in rural UgandaTo establish locally responsive research questions for maternal and newborn health that could be prioritised together with the public in UgandaTo support the case for locally responsive research in maternal and newborn health by the ministry of health, academic researchers and funding bodies in Uganda. METHODS: The present study will follow the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) methodology. The project was initiated by an academic research group and will be managed by a research team at the Sanyu Africa Research Institute on a day to day basis. A steering group with a separate lay mothers' group and partners' group (individuals or organisations with interest in maternal and newborn health) will be recruited. The PSP will be initiated by launch meetings, then a face-to-face initial survey for the collection of raw unanswered questions; followed by data collation. A face-to-face interim prioritisation survey will then be performed to choose questions before the three separate final prioritisation workshops.The PSP will involve many participants from an illiterate, non-internet population in rural eastern Uganda, but all with an interest in strategies to avert maternal and newborn deaths or morbidities in rural eastern Uganda. This includes local rural women, their families, health and social workers, and relevant local groups or organisations.We will generate a top 10 list of maternal and newborn health research priorities from a group with no prior experience in setting a research agenda in rural eastern Uganda. DISCUSSION: The current protocol elaborates the JLA methods for application with a new topic and in a new setting translating the JLA principles not just into the local language, but into a rural, vulnerable, illiterate, and non-internet population in Uganda. The face-to-face human interaction is powerful in eliciting what exactly matters to individuals in this particular context as opposed to online surveys.This will be the first time that mothers and lay public with current or previous experience of maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes will have the opportunity to identify and prioritise research questions that matter to them in Uganda. We will be able to compare how the public would prioritise maternal health research questions over newborn health in this setting.

Research priorities in advanced heart failure: James Lind alliance priority setting partnership.

OBJECTIVE: To determine research priorities in advanced heart failure (HF) for patients, carers and healthcare professionals. METHODS: Priority setting partnership using the systematic James Lind Alliance method for ranking and setting research priorities. An initial open survey of patients, carers and healthcare professionals identified respondents' questions, which were categorised to produce a list of summary research questions; questions already answered in existing literature were removed. In a second survey of patients, carers and healthcare professionals, respondents ranked the summary research questions in order of priority. The top 25 unanswered research priorities were then considered at a face-to-face workshop using nominal group technique to agree on a 'top 10'. RESULTS: 192 respondents submitted 489 responses each containing one or more research uncertainty. Out-of-scope questions (35) were removed, and collating the responses produced 80 summary questions. Questions already answered in the literature (15) were removed. In the second survey, 65 questions were ranked by 128 respondents. The top 10 priorities were developed at a consensus meeting of stakeholders and included a focus on quality of life, psychological support, the impact on carers, role of the charity sector and managing prognostic uncertainty. Ranked priorities by physicians and patients were remarkably divergent. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging stakeholders in setting research priorities led to a novel set of research questions that might not have otherwise been considered. These priorities can be used by researchers and funders to direct future research towards the areas which matter most to people living with advanced HF.

Research priorities for pregnancy hypertension: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy from individuals with lived experience and healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Prospective surveys and consensus meetings using principles outlined by the James Lind Alliance. SETTING: UK. METHODS: A steering group was established and 'uncertainties' were gathered using an online survey and literature search. An interim online survey ranked long-listed questions and the top 10 research questions were reached by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Women, partners, relatives and friends of those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension, researchers and healthcare professionals. RESULTS: The initial online survey was answered by 278 participants (180 women with lived experience, 9 partners/relatives/friends, 71 healthcare professionals and 18 researchers). Together with a literature search, this identified 764 questions which were refined into 50 summary questions. All summary questions were presented in an interim prioritisation survey that was answered by 155 participants (87 women with lived experience, 4 partners/relatives/friends, 49 healthcare professionals and 15 researchers). The top 25 highest ranked questions were considered by the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 uncertainties were identified by consensus and ranked as follows in order of priority: long-term consequences of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), short-term complications of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), screening tests for pre-eclampsia, prevention of long-term problems (for the woman and baby), causes of pregnancy hypertension, prevention of recurrent pregnancy hypertension, educational needs of healthcare professionals, diagnosis of pre-eclampsia, management of pregnancy hypertension, provision of support for women and families. CONCLUSIONS: Research priorities shared by those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension and healthcare professionals have been identified. Researchers should use these to inform the choice of future studies in this area.

Identifying and prioritising unanswered research questions for people with hyperacusis: James Lind Alliance Hyperacusis Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVE: To determine research priorities in hyperacusis that key stakeholders agree are the most important. DESIGN/SETTING: A priority setting partnership using two international surveys, and a UK prioritisation workshop, adhering to the six-staged methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance. PARTICIPANTS: People with lived experience of hyperacusis, parents/carers, family and friends, educational professionals and healthcare professionals who support and/or treat adults and children who experience hyperacusis, including but not limited to surgeons, audiologists, psychologists and hearing therapists. METHODS: The priority setting partnership was conducted from August 2017 to July 2018. An international identification survey asked respondents to submit any questions/uncertainties about hyperacusis. Uncertainties were categorised, refined and rephrased into representative indicative questions using thematic analysis techniques. These questions were verified as 'unanswered' through searches of current evidence. A second international survey asked respondents to vote for their top 10 priority questions. A shortlist of questions that represented votes from all stakeholder groups was prioritised into a top 10 at the final prioritisation workshop (UK). RESULTS: In the identification survey, 312 respondents submitted 2730 uncertainties. Of those uncertainties, 593 were removed as out of scope, and the remaining were refined into 85 indicative questions. None of the indicative questions had already been answered in research. The second survey collected votes from 327 respondents, which resulted in a shortlist of 28 representative questions for the final workshop. Consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities for future research, including identifying causes and underlying mechanisms, effective management and training for healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: These priorities were identified and shaped by people with lived experience, parents/carers and healthcare professionals, and as such are an essential resource for directing future research in hyperacusis. Researchers and funders should focus on addressing these priorities.

RE-CODE DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy): A Consensus Process to Improve Research Efficiency in DCM, Through Establishment of a Standardized Dataset for Clinical Research and the Definition of the Research Priorities.

STUDY DESIGN: Mixed-method consensus process. OBJECTIVES: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition that arises when mechanical stress damages the spinal cord as a result of degenerative changes in the surrounding spinal structures. RECODE-DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) aims to improve efficient use of health care resources within the field of DCM by using a multi-stakeholder partnership to define the DCM research priorities, to develop a minimum dataset for DCM clinical studies, and confirm a definition of DCM. METHODS: This requires a multi-stakeholder partnership and multiple parallel consensus development processes. It will be conducted via 4 phases, adhering to the guidance set out by the COMET (Core Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials) and JLA (James Lind Alliance) initiatives. Phase 1 will consist of preliminary work to inform online Delphi processes (Phase 2) and a consensus meeting (Phase 3). Following the findings of the consensus meeting, a synthesis of relevant measurement instruments will be compiled and assessed as per the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) criteria, to allow recommendations to be made on how to measure agreed data points. Phase 4 will monitor and promote the use of eventual recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: RECODE-DCM sets out to establish for the first time an index term, minimum dataset, and research priorities together. Our aim is to reduce waste of health care resources in the future by using patient priorities to inform the scope of future DCM research activities. The consistent use of a standard dataset in DCM clinical studies, audit, and clinical surveillance will facilitate pooled analysis of future data and, ultimately, a deeper understanding of DCM.

Identifying research priorities for digital technology in mental health care: results of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Digital technology, including the internet, smartphones, and wearables, provides the possibility to bridge the mental health treatment gap by offering flexible and tailored approaches to mental health care that are more accessible and potentially less stigmatising than those currently available. However, the evidence base for digital mental health interventions, including demonstration of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in real-world settings, remains inadequate. The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for digital technology in mental health care was established to identify research priorities that reflect the perspectives and unmet needs of people with lived experience of mental health problems and use of mental health services, their carers, and health-care practitioners. 644 participants contributed 1369 separate questions, which were reduced by qualitative thematic analysis into six overarching themes. Following removal of out-of-scope questions and a comprehensive search of existing evidence, 134 questions were verified as uncertainties suitable for research. These questions were then ranked online and in workshops by 628 participants to produce a shortlist of 26. The top ten research priorities, which were identified by consensus at a stakeholder workshop, should inform research policy and funding in this field. Identified priorities primarily relate to the safety and efficacy of digital technology interventions in comparison with face-to-face interventions, evidence of population reach, mechanisms of therapeutic change, and the ways in which the effectiveness of digital interventions in combination with human support might be optimised.